3 ms·
I agree that the costs far outweigh the benefits here, but there’s clearly a legitimate use. If you’ll remember the Bernie Goetz case, there was a lot of debate
by SilasX 4y ago
I agree that the costs far outweigh the benefits here, but there’s clearly a legitimate use. If you’ll remember the Bernie Goetz case, there was a lot of debate about out, and legal significance to, what the kids said before Goetz started shooting.
I agree that the occasional significance of some conversations does not justify the constant widespread surveillance, but it’s a bit much to say that this couldn’t possibly be useful.
- Beldin 4y agoI don't remember that case at all. Possibly because I'm not American. Could you elaborate what would be a valid reason? From what you wrote, it sounds like someone started shooting after some kids said some things. I can see that as an argument for gun legislation, but not for installing microphones in public spaces.
- SilasX 4y agoIt would be the same issue if he simply assaulted them with his fists -- the recording would help to determine if he was being threatened. You can look up the case on Wikipedia and elsewhere if you're curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_New_York_City_Subway_shooting#Incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_New_York_City_Subway_shoo... Bottom line, it's really not hard to imagine that audio recording would help determine important facts of a case; this shouldn't be controversial in and of itself. The issue is the relative cost to personal liberty.